"Jackie" was a film that I was excited to see, so when it came to the theater where I volunteer, I even went to go see it before I was scheduled to volunteer so that I could pay 100% of my attention to it. Ultimately, I thought that "Jackie" was a good, but not great film
The main issue of the film was its pacing. I thought that the film was a bit slower than I expected overall. I also thought that the editing was a little weird, with some overly long takes and some parts that had random, jumpy cuts. That being said, the writing definitely isn't bad. The film is a really unique biopic in the fact that it doesn't really portray the protagonist as one would expect. It shows her as somewhat morally ambiguous, and it is really interesting. I also liked the tone of the film, which was dark and mysterious, created both through the writing and its symbolism and the score.
The film is very well-made. The cinematography was great. There were some amazing shots, even one that looked like it blended archive footage with new footage. I also like how the film tried to replicate the style of the archive footage. The costume design is also very good in periodizing the film. I thought that Natalie Portman's performance may have been a bit overrated, though. Don't get me wrong, it was very good, but I don't think it was worthy of Best Actress. The really impressive performance was Peter Sarsgaard, who played Bobby Kennedy. His performance showed exceptional range and believability. Billy Crudup and John Hurt are also good in supporting roles.
Overall, I can't deny that "Jackie" was well-made, but I thought it had some issues with pacing, nor did I think that Portman's performance was as great as expected. As such, I didn't really love it.
Big Tuna's Rating: B
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes, I will see it again when I volunteer, and it may clarify some things.
I am a huge movie fan that wants to tell people about my very varying taste and opinion of film.